9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I believe that wake turbulence only affects other in flight objects by inducing them to roll. Its effect on vehicles on the ground is minimal and much less than even jet blast is. If you notice the document that you posted does not include a safety listing for taxiing behind a larger aircraft that has just taken off or landed, only for landing or taking off behind them. For that matter if you have ever seen an aircraft make an emergency landing and the fire department, ramp crew, mechanics and FAA personnel are lining the taxiway, and what you were saying was true, don’t you think that their vehicles would be knocked around. Doubly so if the flight has to do a low level fly over for inspection first (like a landing gear down lock light showing a failure), or if they had to abort and do a go around? I have been there, and guess what, my vehicle never so much as swayed back and forth. As to the Jet engines, they do push air, but it directly behind the engine, and that blast dissipates in its ability to flip a car or damage structures a pretty short distance behind the plane. This amount varies some with the throttle setting. Of course the more throttle, the further the blast extends. You have to realize the amount of air it would take to flip a vehicle though is substantial and partly based on the aerodynamics of the vehicle and its weight. The same with the light poles, I could back a jet engine up to one and the jet blast may make it sway, but its not going to break one because the air travels around the pole. If you look back a couple pages, you will find the 757 handbook, in the ground handling section, is the exact MPH speed of the jetbast and its shape at various throttle settings. You stand a better chance of being burned in a car behind a running engine, or having something blow through the windshield then you do of flipping the vehicle. All this makes me wonder how those little poles with lights at the end of the runways ever manage to survive, Or the glass bulbs that they contain? Let me guess they don’t and its all another conspiracy to help throw people off of the preplanning of 911. They have really been changing those poles and lights between every landing for the last 50 years just to cover up the light poles that did not fall that day, right? PS... Hay Zaph, make sure not to mention the special sticky tires and pants that we use on ramp equipment and the backsides of tuggers to keep them glued to the vehicles and the vehicles to the road. SHHH! [edit on 12/2/2005 by defcon5]

i'm not looking for overly dramatic effects, but noone ever mentions the slightest breeze, no paper flying around, nothing. of course, they might have all ignored these effects, due to surpirse and all, but isn't that a tad too convenient?

Most people probably didn't even notice if it even happened. If you're driving in a car, you're going to be too busy going "Oh my god that plane is about to crash!" and trying to avoid it to notice some paper flying around.

so... FORTY video surveilance cameras (allegedly) were all on the fritz at the department of redundancy department of redundancy, SSECURITY CAPITOL OF THE "FREEWORLD". uh, yeah. okay. what are the odds?

Where is the number of cameras coming from? Is there a source to show that there are forty camera’s on that side of the building with a field of view to that area, or are we just picking this number out of the air? Edit to add As a matter of fact I see above that this is 40 for the entire building, hum… You think that most might be set up to be tight shot camera to see who is accessing doors and would not have caught jack… [edit on 12/2/2005 by defcon5]

the source is that nila fellow. do a search, "nila pentagon", or "nila commercial pilot" or somesuch. i tire of trying convince the unconvincible. the referenced 40 cameras are not claimed to be every security camera at the pentagon. just the ones on the roof(allegedly).

Originally posted by billybob i tire of trying convince the unconvincible.

Maybe that is because I have worked on 757’s, and I have seen parts of the plane, which I can recognize, clearly in the wreckage of the building. I can clearly make out the shape of the nose and tail of the aircraft in the video. I know everything you ever want to know about jetblast (and induction for that matter) and a bag of chips, since I had to dance all around running engines everyday. I have done photography while on the ramp and know about how small that plane is going to look at that distance on film. I have seen skydrol burn white smoke. I know that some of the parts of the plane would penetrate deeper, and stay together longer than others. I know how fragile 80% of the fuselage of an aircraft is. I know how easy it is to rip up the aluminum they are made of. I know that they can slide across the grass without tearing it to shreds. I know that a 757 can turn 270 degrees in 3 miles and descend without a fighter pilot flying it. I know that 12 guys are not going to hold even a part of the tail over their heads with one hand under a blue tarp and not even be breaking a sweat (besides it would fall on them because it is too smooth to carry like that with no way to grip it). I know that a 757 can fit into a single story of a building with its gear up while only shearing the tail. I know the tail would not have put up much resistance to a hardened structure, nor would the ends of either wings. I know that engines are designed to shear off. I know that most of the size of a 757 engine is empty space. I have listened to the EMS calls. I read the witnesses statements. MOREOVER, A 757 hit the Pentagon, and you all have yet to show me a single thing to make me truly doubt what I know and what I have seen. Nor has anyone EVER answered my question here from day 1, which is, “why would they use anything BUT a 757 to hit the Pentagon?” So basically this same remark can be used right back at you guys. Now there may be other conspiracies surrounding 911, I know it all does not sit right with me, but THIS is not one, in fact this is nothing but an exercise in wasting a bunch of time and bandwidth.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by billybob i tire of trying convince the unconvincible.

Maybe that is because I have worked on 757’s, and I have seen parts of the plane, which I can recognize, clearly in the wreckage of the building. I can clearly make out the shape of the nose and tail of the aircraft in the video. I know everything you ever want to know about jetblast (and induction for that matter) and a bag of chips, since I had to dance all around running engines everyday. I have done photography while on the ramp and know about how small that plane is going to look at that distance on film. I have seen skydrol burn white smoke. I know that some of the parts of the plane would penetrate deeper, and stay together longer than others. I know how fragile 80% of the fuselage of an aircraft is. I know how easy it is to rip up the aluminum they are made of. MOREOVER, A 757 hit the Pentagon, and you all have yet to show me a single thing to make me truly doubt what I know and what I have seen. Nor has anyone EVER answered my question here from day 1, which is, “why would they use anything BUT a 757 to hit the Pentagon?” So basically this same remark can be used right back at you guys.

the answer is a 757 is a big boat and hard to do precision maneuvers with. john lear(the most highly decorated pilot on earth) said so. this nila fellow says so. also, if the aircraft's precision strike was provided by fly-by-wire technology, then an aircraft would have to be custom-fitted with global-hawk guidance. the potential REASON for switching planes, was to put a bunch of shadow government operatives into new identities, similiar to the witness protection program, except this time it would be the COUP ENABLER protection plan. i'm sorry i just can't ignore bold 'crazy lies' like those at tomflocco.com. as easily as other people who are too lazy to use their heads for something besides saying 'yes, mr. president' over and over. i'm sorry i can't ignore the graphics on a twenty dollar bill folded into an airplane, i'm sorry i can't ignore that rap album, 'coup', or that card game, 'illuminati NWO', or all the freudian slips issued out of the mouths of lying cabalists. i won't make any absolute conclusions about the mechanics of the pentagon strike until i can see more evidence with my own eyes. i am, however, ABSOLUTELY convinced that on 911 america started it's life as an orwellian fascist dictatorship. did you know that recently, someone got their hands on the original zapruder film, and a few frames which had been edited out by (the same cabal that pulled 911) were edited out because they show a bulllet hole in a road sign(proving there was more than one shooter). that was FORTY YEARS AGO, and only now, is the public able to see what constitutes 'NATIONAL SECURITY'. if you feel this thread is a waste of bandwidth, why do you add to it?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 What proof is there they were all malfunctioning, with the exception of something ONE person has said? As far as the seizing of evidence, come on, it was a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION of COURSE they're going to seize evidence so that they can figure out what happened. You don't see the police come along after a murder and say "Oh, there's a camera over there, but I doubt it picked anything up, so leave the tape there."

you also don't see police disturbing ther crime scene IMMEDIATELY after the crime. nor do they destroy evidence. nor are legal actions against the perps possible until a solid case built on evidence is presented to the courts. the forensic guys must have been FURIOUS that their job was made not only harder, but far less accurate, than it would have been if the cleanup had been done LEGALLY. but, of course, the secret service is good. no worries. go back to sleep, sheep. hey, and i heard some guy, just a regular joe, who spent a lot of time with 911 videos from mainstream news and a magnifying glass. he has very horrific stories that i've never heard before. one is that you can see arabs on the ground at both the pentagon AND the towers. they can be seen shooting civilians. he says the soundtrack doesn't sync with the picture. perhaps, that's why noone can hear explosions on the mainstream feeds, the sound was dubbed in. the same guy also claims he sees a military truck with missile launchers on the back, which had arrived BEFORE the planes hit. he says something is fired at the tower from another building(the woolworth's tower?). you know what i'm starting to think happened on 911? elements within the US power structure worked with middle eastern terrorists, enabling a terror attack on the towers. what the (pawn)arabs didn't know, was that the US military was going to HELP them and make their attack HIGHLY successful. i didn't even believe a missile was fired from the woolworth's tower. it's like trying to make a bonfire bigger by throwing a match into it. however, if a bunch of violent fools had been convinced they were going to make some terror, i could see the logic of firing a missile into the tower, or shooting civilians on the ground. anyway, this is JUST A RUMOUR. the man did say that the video tapes he was looking at were mainstream newsfeeds from that day, though, so perhaps he is just seeing things that aren't there. or, maybe he is one of the first to discover things that ARE there. iin any case, there are at least THOUSANDS of copies, if not MILLIONS from that day, so, history will officially confirm or deny this eventually, as this meme blossoms in the noosphere.

some very good information here on response capabilities and protocols. these people(cassiopaea) always do their research well.

final addition: going through the list given here or here or basically everywhere on the web, i found a new witness account of the plane loitering above Georgetown... together with a few other other testimonies, and the radar operator's view, there's a fairly complete picture available. feel free to comment and remember, that i am basing this on barely reliable data. so, step by step: the aircraft arrived from the (south-)southwest (my assumption: at altitude), flew right into DC, according to

testimony of Clyde A. Vaughn, Army Brig. Gen Brig. Gen. Clyde Vaughn of the U.S. Army, director of military support, told reporters he was in his car on nearby Interstate 395 when the plane hit the Pentagon on Tuesday morning. Vaughn said"I was scanning the air" as he was sitting in his car. "There wasn't anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it looked like it was loitering over Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank," he said. "That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that (flight) pattern." Georgetown is a sector of the District of Columbia jammed with shops and restaurants - it is one of the city's most vital tourist draws. Commercial aircraft that are either approaching or departing from nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport do not fly over Georgetown, and rather trace their flight route over the nearby Potomac River, which separates the district from South Arlington, Virginia, location of the Pentagon. A few minutes later, Vaughn witnessed the craft's impact.

initiated at least one turn to the right (if i understood left hand bank correctly), then as seen by

Allen Cleveland "I was just pulling in on the subway station just at National Airport. I just happened to look over - actually my back was facing in the direction of the Pentagon - I looked to the right of the train as we were coming into the station, and noticed a jet flying in real low, about a mid-sized passenger jet flying in. I know it was silver, that's the only thing I know.

the subway station is located right in the middle of Ronald Reagan airport, unfortunately, he doesn't tell which direction it went at that time, but after taking a glimpse at the map, i'd say the plane was on its final approach following I-395, if not, it was travelling along the Potomac, right before turning right to meet the 395 as reported by..

Tim Timmerman I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building....

..and..

Michael Tinyk he saw a dark orange and blue commercial airliner just above the tree line "coming in lower and lower" on what he instantly registered as the "wrong side" of the flight path to the airport. "There was no reason for a plane to come in that low, that fast" ... The plane took "a flight path straight up 395,"

the path along I-395 appears to be correct, after all. --------- final thoughts: there are various quotes indicating a negative AoA (angle of attack), f.example:

Albert Hemphill .... All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. ....

so, as expected, ground effect at work, consistent with the paragraph on negative AoA by: home.comcast.net... , a 'no-plane' website, btw. imho, no-one would invent this, the witness' statements clearly indicate that there WAS a 757, which hit the pentagon, as advertised, so to speak. multiplane theories cannot be ruled out, even though such a plot would vastly complicate affairs for the perpetrators. minor issue:

Danielle O'Brien, radar operator ...But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver. "We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. And we waited. And your heart is just beating out of your chest waiting to hear what's happened," says O'Brien. "And then the Washington National [Airport] controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, `Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit.

that must have been the turn used to shed altitude, the final turn towards I-395 was in all likelyhood flown too low for radar tracking. i'd say that's pretty much it, since wake vortices are most pronounced when flying slowly and heavily loaded in clean configuration, one can assume they are not as strong when flying near top speed, negative AoA otoh, would take care of jet blast (which would then be deflected slightly upwards). only real remaining issue is the observed damage pattern, which was, of course, obscured by removing all debris outright and probably by demoltion to further complicate the issué, sparking divergent conspiracy theories in the process.

don't worry, I'm still with you, there is still an awfull lot of eyewitness material to wade through by me. Btw, I followed the initial flightpath set out on that map by that Californian pilot, his name was mentioned under the original map+path on the website where it originated, and he said he constructed that flightpath from radar data and eyewitnesses accounts as good as he could. I'm not sure if he really did an outstanding job, I think his flightpath still needs quite some ajustments. I come back shortly on this subject, give me a few days.

Hi im new to this thred but I have found some evidence of a Flight 93 on 9/11 which was flying close to the Pentagon. This audio tape may change things here.... www.physics911.ca...:_evidence Click on the Flight 93, Air traffic control Tower

You also might consider to buy this to help with your research: www.qfgpublishing.com...

They actually warned United 93 about one of the other hijacked flights, shortly before it was taken over. The crew was looking for it so they didn't midair with it. Shortly before it got to the border of Kentucky they lost contact, and it was seen turning around on radar.

but eventually they lost track of it on the radar...

Hey all. I must say this has been the most interesting debate in the four years since 9/11. I agree that an airplane hit the pentagon but clearly it wasn't a 757. The pentagon only released those five frames but even in the first frame you can tell its much smaller then a 757. And in the frames after there is a gray smoke trail. That doesn't happen from a 757 flying at 3 feet off the gound Even CNN originally reported that something hit the pentagon but the wreckage that remained indicated no airliner. The reporter continued to say that judging from the small hole that it was a smaller type plane. I was watching CNN when the on scene reporter said there was only a small hole and small plane wreckage. CNN didn't stick with that story for very long. More often then not the corporate media changes it's stories. You can all judge for yourselves. I've seen all the photographs and there is indeed a small hole and not enough wreckage to indicate a big airliner. And as for the Fox news reports that the plane vapourized? When I was watching tv on 9/11 they said that there weren't any body parts recovered. Vapourized from all the fuel. No luggage or any of the seats can be found in the recovery photos either. The Coroner didn't even recover any airline passenger body parts. However the FBI claims that they found an ATM card which was in good condition. It was one of their key pieces of evidence linking the victims in the attack. Now how can that be? As for witnesses I don't deny they saw an airplane either. In times like these however the corporate media rushes in and before you know it the story involves a purple monkey dishwasher. I feel real sorry for anyone who considers Fox news and CNN as a reliable source.

Except aren't you considering CNN a reliable source for saying it either wasn't an airliner, or it was smaller than a 757?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Except aren't you considering CNN a reliable source for saying it either wasn't an airliner, or it was smaller than a 757?

Actualy no, he was using his brain. So he agreed with CNN about the plane size, doesn't mean his mind was made up by it, just that he agreed with their conclusion. How did you miss that? Like everything else about 911 I guess

Hey. don't blame me that aspects of 9/11 don't add up Zaphod. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of contradictions to the official story. Everytime one comes up in the media they never actually provide evidence to discredit it. all they say is conspiracy theory this and conspiracy theory that then they cut to commercial. If you truly believe the line that you have been fed by corporate media then I feel real sorry for you. To the rest of us we know what is true and what is a lie. Did you know that after the Reichstag fire Jospeh Goebells used the same media tactics that is used today? Not all of the ones used today but the core concepts are there at any rate. Anyone who said Hitler was a nutcase was branded as a nutjob themselves. Kind of Ironic how nothing has really changed. Heck. There were even people in 1918 who said that the Treaty would lead to another European conflict and the media called them nuts and what have you. History repeats itself. And history is repeating itself even as we speak. To those of you who have figured this out congratulations to you all. The truth movement has truly come to the point of no return. Half of America believes 9/11 was an inside job and the other half refuses to accept the facts by pure ignorance. They choose to remain with the only thing they have ever known. * I think that the biggest problem with the Pentagon debate is the debate itself. Some people believe no plane hit. Some people believe that a 757 Hit. Thats the major problem I think at this point. The huge division in the argument. When we can narrow the argument between whether it was a 757 or an A-3 Skywarrior then I think many more people will realize. Now. The fact that CNN pulled the story and changed completely to match Fox News is the biggest indication. Same with the Basement Bombs stories. Those reports were only on television for a few minutes if that. Corporate Media pulled them so fast it wasn't even funny. I've done alot of reading on the subject and done alot of legwork. You will be hard pressed to find a NY firefighter who doesn't believe that there were bombs in the basement. In the French Brothers video there is even scene where all the firefighters were talking about how they felt the collapse looked like a controlled demolition. Now I don't know about some people. But when pretty well every Ny firefighter who was there at the WTC says bombs brought the building down then I'm inclined to believe them. These people saw whole firefighting units wiped out. It would be a great insult to the memory of the Firefighters to brand the surviving FF's as conspiracy theory nuts. www.total911.info... Here's the original pentagon report for those who dare bring out the "conspiracy theory" card. You can stick that tinfoil hat up your arse if do. Like I said. I believe a plane much smaller then a 757 hit the Pentagon. The reporter said that no plane hit the Pent. but clearly from the small amount of wreckage a small plane had to be involved. I've seen alot of pictures taken during the investigation and I certainly didn't see anything to indicate 757 wreckage at all. Only a small unidentifiable plane. Although I believe it was an A-3 Skywarrior. [edit on 18-12-2005 by Huabamambo] [edit on 18-12-2005 by Huabamambo] [edit on 18-12-2005 by Huabamambo] [edit on 18-12-2005 by Huabamambo]